Case Law
Subject : Consumer Law - Real Estate Litigation
Chandigarh, U.T. – The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Private Limited to deliver possession of apartments in its "The Lake" project and pay significant compensation to homebuyers for inordinate delays. The Commission, presided over by Justice Raj Shekhar Attri and Member Mr. Rajesh K. Arya, dismissed the developer's arguments, including the claim that a contractual penalty of ₹5 per square foot was sufficient, deeming such clauses "harsh, oppressive or unconscionable."
The bench held the developer liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices for failing to deliver the apartments by the promised date of January 9, 2021.
Two separate complaints were filed by Ramesh Kumar and Ravinder Avasthi, who had booked apartments in Omaxe's "The Lake" project in New Chandigarh in May 2017. Both complainants had paid over ₹85 lakh each, a substantial portion of the total cost of approximately ₹1.01 crore.
As per the allotment letter dated July 10, 2017, possession was to be delivered within 42 months (36 months plus a 6-month grace period), making the deadline January 9, 2021. However, the developer failed to offer possession, prompting the homebuyers to approach the consumer commission seeking possession and compensation for the delay of over two years.
Omaxe raised several preliminary objections, all of which were systematically dismantled by the Commission.
A pivotal part of the judgment dealt with the "unfair and unreasonable" compensation clause in the builder-buyer agreement. The Commission cited landmark Supreme Court judgments, including Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Gouvindan Raghavan , to reinforce the principle that courts can strike down one-sided contract terms between parties with unequal bargaining power.
The judgment stated, "...it is well settled law that a court can strike down an unfair and unreasonable contract, or an unfair and unreasonable clause in a contract, entered into between the parties who are not equal in bargaining power."
The Commission found the meagre compensation offered by Omaxe to be substantively unfair and opted to award a more equitable compensation.
The State Commission partly accepted the complaints and issued a series of directives to Omaxe, holding the company and its directors jointly and severally liable:
The order also specified that if Omaxe fails to comply with the monetary awards within 30 days, the amount will attract a higher interest rate of 12% per annum until realization. The developer was also barred from charging any delayed interest on the remaining balance from the homebuyers, as the delay was attributable to the builder.
#ConsumerProtection #RealEstateLaw #BuilderBuyerDispute
Pune Court: Swatantryaveer Title Not Government-Conferred in Gandhi Case
10 Apr 2026
Supreme Court: Temple Exclusions Harm Hinduism
10 Apr 2026
Stranger Directly Affected by Interim Order Entitled to Impleadment in Writ Proceedings: Supreme Court
10 Apr 2026
Dismissal from BSF Valid Without Security Force Court Trial if Inexpedient Due to Civilians Involved: Calcutta HC
10 Apr 2026
Limitation Under Section 468 CrPC Runs From FIR Filing Date, Not Cognizance: Supreme Court
10 Apr 2026
Higher DA Enhancement for Serving Employees Than DR for Pensioners Violates Article 14: Supreme Court
11 Apr 2026
Broad Daylight Murder of Senior Lawyer in Mirzapur
11 Apr 2026
SC Justice Amanullah: Don't Blame Judges for Pendency
11 Apr 2026
Varanasi Court Seeks Police Report on Kishwar Defamation
11 Apr 2026
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.